|
|
#21
09-17-2007, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the iran war will be largely about oil as well. [/ QUOTE ] So will the sino-russian war [/ QUOTE ] FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Barron 
|
|
#22
09-17-2007, 08:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And His Point Is?.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 2 questions: So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil? However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves? [/ QUOTE ] I think his point was that terrorists not funded by oil don't tend to have to resources to threaten U.S. interests. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. His point is that oil rich countries have resources which are worth stealing, occupying, murdering, terrorizing. Countries that don't have such (or other meaningful) resources are worthless and any war among them would actually be in the US interest (wars weakening them by reducing other countries resources/funds/people).
|
|
#23
09-17-2007, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And His Point Is?.....
Felix,
I really made an effort to read your posts and understand your points. But I just busted out laughing when you linked to the CFR as a source of information. They're about as reliable a source of unbiased info as Alex Jones, just with the opposite agenda.
|
|
#24
09-17-2007, 10:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?
Perhaps you are correct. The US State Dept is one of the worst and most incompetant departments in the US govt. 80% of what they say is crap. So perhaps their opinion on Iraq is crap as well. Regardless, I notice you were unable to refute one fact posted on Iraq's transgressions in the field of terrorism. Perhaps you are unable.....so you resort to the sophmoric tactic of dismissing the entire argument because you lack the basic reasoning skills to address these points directly. I grant you it is a lot easier to make flippant remarks dismissing counter-arguments rather than engaging them directly. After all, using google to do basic research to support you arguments is just too much work. Yes? Please do *NOT* put too much effort in your posts in the political forum. I would not want you to over exert yourself....
|
|
#25
09-17-2007, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And His Point Is?.....
The US State Dept put Iraq on their list of nations that sponsored terror. The link cited them as a source. Did you bother to read the link? Can you refute ONE the the facts they listed on Iraq's involvement in supporting terror?.... No? <Sigh> You are typical of the lazy posters in this forum....
The truth is you are unable to address any of these points so you make a flippant remark and run away from the argument as fast as you can. But perhaps my expectations are too high on this forum. Afterall, you were probably educated in the US public school system so I should not expect too much from you....
|
|
#26
09-17-2007, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And His Point Is?.....
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. His point is that oil rich countries have resources which are worth stealing, occupying, murdering, terrorizing. [/ QUOTE ] If this were true....then the USA would take Kuwait's, Bahrain's, and Dubai's oil. Then the USA would be flush with cash. After all these countries don't have the military to stop the USA.... While we're at it lets take Indonesia's oil as well. But but don't let these facts stop you from continuing your self-hating American rhetoric... Before the 1991 War, Iraq was a useful counter-balance to checking Iran's imperial ambitions. It was in many countries interests including the USA that Iraq be a strong country. However in 1991, Bush chose to engage in an optional war with Iraq. Countries like Saudia Arabia, Syria, et al ask the US to attack Iraq because they feared a strong Iraq that possessed Kuwait's oil. The peace treaty after the war was crap. It gave Iraq no honorable outs other than defiance of the treaty. But the 1993 assassination attempt on Bush41 was grounds alone for war.... The war should have started that day.... Saddam is a screw-up. If he played his cards right he could have gotten what he wanted without having a war with the USA....
|
|
#27
09-17-2007, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And His Point Is?.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism ... [/ QUOTE ] Keep repeating this lie and it still doesn't make it true. [/ QUOTE ] Kaj, saddam paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers... its 100% true.
|
|
#28
09-17-2007, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
[ QUOTE ]
the iran war will be largely about oil as well. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but don't worry the war on Venezuela in 2014 will be entirely about freedom and democracy and keeping America safe.
|
|
#29
09-17-2007, 11:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"
Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction. You know the old joke : Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction" A : "They checked the receipts."
|
|
#30
09-17-2007, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And His Point Is?.....
[ QUOTE ]
Afterall, you were probably educated in the US public school system so I should not expect too much from you.... [/ QUOTE ] LOL, nope. Talk about flippant remarks... What fine neo-con institution educated you?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
